Re: [9fans] the meaning of group

["Bruce Ellis" <bruce.ellis@gmail.com>]

think about what you said. you don't understand the auth model.
glad to see that you are still replying to everything and generate 40%
of the traffic on 9fans. i'm with maht. this is not a "i couldn't be bothered"
blog. yes, this is not a love song...

brucee

On Jan 29, 2008 10:35 AM, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote:
> On Mon Jan 28 18:01:00 EST 2008, forsyth@terzarima.net wrote:
> > > without any agreed-upon or secure arbiter of groups which tracks centralized
> > > information, this does not seem like a good idea to me.
> >
> > `centralised' information?
> >
> > i assume you'd have to be hostowner to load it, so it's up to the host-owner process that loads it what it
> > regards as `adequately reliable' data.  on a cpu server, it can be consistent with the user names associated with
> > processes on that system.  that's not centralised though: it's a local convention.
>
> i don't mean coordiated outside our site.  perhaps i didn't make that clear.
>
> what you're saying sounds like, say, putting some configuration in /rc/bin/cpurc.
> the problem is that this information needs to be updated across all cpu servers
> more often than everything is rebooted.
>
> perhaps a file on /srv/boot could be given to the fs which could be opened to check
> group permission?  too cute?
>
> - erik
>